|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 4:29 am: | 
|
Just a small point re Stephen Ryder's dissertation discussing a letter about a Ripper suspect from the Earl of Crawford.
It seems that the (later) earl became Anderson's friend after they both served on the Royal Observatory of Edinburgh Commission in 1876. Anderson says of this Commission:
... in this connection I gained the friendship of the Royal Astronomer and Mrs. Piazzi Smythe. I should mention also the Chairman, Lord Lindsay (now Earl of Crawford), and Professor Tait; and the acquaintance I then formed with Sir George Airy, the Astronomer-Royal, proved valuable to me afterwards in some of my literary work.
[The Lighter Side of My Official Life, p. 73 (1910)]
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 712
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
I suspect the tenor of the Earl of Crawford's letter - particularly the statement that the informant "is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril" - is more consistent with a working-class suspect within the East End rather than an upper-class suspect such as Druitt living elsewhere.
If that's correct, in trying to work out how the earl might have come into contact with the informant, it may be significant that the earl's son was a social worker in Whitechapel in the early 1890s.
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says that "after completing his studies he undertook social work at the Oxford House university settlement in Bethnal Green under the auspices of the Charity Organization Society".
But his published journals show he was already pursuing social work in the East End as early as July 1892, when he records his impressions of Whitechapel Road on a Saturday night (The Crawford papers: the journals of David Lindsay, twenty-seventh earl of Crawford … 1892–1940, ed. J. Vincent, 1984).
Given his age, David could scarcely have been pursuing his social work as early as 1888, but it may be that his father had similar connections.
The earlier Crawford Papers have been deposited at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, but they end with the generation of the 24th earl (died 1869).
It seems there are other Crawford papers at the National Library of Scotland, though I've been unable to get a very clear idea through the library's website. If there's anyone wanting to do a little research in Edinburgh, they may be able to find out more.
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Hi Chris
Interesting speculation on your part. However, Chris, having read Stephen's dissertation and the text of the letter from Lord Crawford I don't at all see the basis for your conclusion, that you
. . . suspect the tenor of the Earl of Crawford's letter - particularly the statement that the informant "is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril" - is more consistent with a working-class suspect within the East End rather than an upper-class suspect such as Druitt living elsewhere.
There is simply no indication of whether the informant is of low or high class, a person of the streets or a respectable middle class woman. And as you yourself say, the notion that the Earl might have been put in touch with an East End (presumably poor) family by his own son David Lindsay, through David's social work in the East End, is a nonstarter since it appears Lindsay only began that work at a later date.
Rather once more, as I stated, the text of the letter gives away nothing as to the status of the bearer-
2 CAVENDISH SQUARE
W.
My dear Anderson,
I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril.
I have advised her to place the whole story before you, without giving you any names, so that you may form an opinion as to its being worth while to investigate.
Very sincerely yours,
Crawford
We might once more note the odd flavor of the letter that the Earl actually says he does not know the name of the woman he is sending to Sir Robert Anderson because she supposedly has information on a family member being involved in the murders. Whether we think the woman of high or low class might depend on our own predispositions or our inclination toward a suspect -- for example, Stephen when he wrote the dissertation thought the family information might indicate Druitt but someone who favored a local man such as Kosminski might favor a woman from a poor family.
What if though we hypothesize that higher rather than lower class might be probable? This might work a couple of ways, e.g., 1) The Earl purposely made a point of having the informant not tell him her name because he thought it might complicate things in his social, political, or business milieu. Or 2) the woman herself did not want her identity known for similar reasons, a tactic that might possibly occur to a gentlewoman than a working class East End woman.
Of course scenario 2 might also be the case if she was an East Ender and was frightened that her possibly murderous relative could come after her, or afraid for some other reason to do with the violent nature of the East End, an abusive husband or father, say.
So you see you really do takes yer picks, depending on one's predilictions. 
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Hi all
The Crawford letter is fascinating and puzzling. The most baffling assertion is that Crawford did not know the woman's name. This suggests to me that she was nearer Crawford's class than the streets of the East End. Would a man of Crawford's standing take this unknown woman's story at face value when she refused to even reveal her own identity if she were from the streets of the East End and place enough credence in it to refer her to Anderson?
The other intriguing thing is why it was Crawford she chose to go to? What made her think she could trust him or that he could help her? If she was of the lower classes I suspect she must have been referred to Crawfords by someone who knew him, perhaps one of his own domestic servants.
Just a few thoughts
Chris |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Chris G.
There is simply no indication of whether the informant is of low or high class, a person of the streets or a respectable middle class woman.
I'm afraid I've never seen why a respectable family living outside the East End should fear being placed "in peril" by a suspicion that one of its members was the murderer.
(I feel "peril" would be too altogether strong a word to mean "public embarrassment" - the interpretation suggested by Stephen in his dissertation.)
On the contrary, given the febrile state of the East End at the time of the murders, it's easy to understand why the family of a suspect might fear danger from a violent mob.
(I must admit I hadn't thought of your other suggestion, that the informant might feel at risk from a reprisal by the suspect himself. But it would hardly be logical for her to fear that the rest of her family would be threatened in this way.)
And as you yourself say, the notion that the Earl might have been put in touch with an East End (presumably poor) family by his own son David Lindsay, through David's social work in the East End, is a nonstarter since it appears Lindsay only began that work at a later date.
I think we have to be a bit careful about this argument, because we don't know exactly when David first went to Whitechapel (unfortunately his journals begin only in 1892), and we don't know when Crawford wrote his letter to Anderson (though if my suggested interpretation of "peril" is correct, it would probably have been in late 1888).
But mostly I'm suggesting it would be interesting to know whether the earl himself had similar philanthropic interests in the East End, which his son might have followed.
Of course, if the earl's correspondence is at the National Library of Scotland, it would be interesting to look at it anyway, in case the other half of this correspondence has survived.
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Hi Chris P
You quote me--
"There is simply no indication of whether the informant is of low or high class, a person of the streets or a respectable middle class woman."
And then answer-
"I'm afraid I've never seen why a respectable family living outside the East End should fear being placed 'in peril' by a suspicion that one of its members was the murderer."
Couldn't the referred to peril be from the suspected family member, i.e., the lady feared that if he knew his identity was to be revealed, the suspect might do harm to her, to himself, or other family members?
I have done research at the National Library of Scotland on George IV Bridge Street in Edinburgh. The staff do answer enquiries and it may pay to write to them, unless we can get a researcher in there to look at the papers and report.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 718
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Chris
I did try to address that point in my last post. I can see why the author wouldn't be pleased if he knew she had informed on him, but I don't see why it should place the rest of her family in danger, given that it was presumably his family as well.
Again, doesn't the phrasing of the letter suggest that the peril to her and her family would arise because she was nearly related to the author. If the peril came from the author himself, would it apply whether she was related to him or not? But perhaps there's a limit to how much we can deduce from the text.
Thanks for the suggestion about a postal enquiry to the National Library of Scotland.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1706
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Thought this biog of Crawford might be of interest:
James Ludovic Lindsay, 26th earl of Crawford (1847 ), British astronomer and orientalist, was born at St Germain-en-Laye, France, on the 28th of July 1847. Educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, he devoted himself to astronomy, in which he early achieved distinction. In 1870 he went to Cadiz to observe the eclipse of the sun, and, in 1874, to Mauritius to observe the transit of Venus. In the interval, with the assistance of his father, he had built an observatory at Dunecht, Aberdeenshire, which in 1888 he presented, together with his unique library of astronomical and mathematical works, to the New Royal Observatory on Blackford Hill, Edinburgh, where they were installed in 1895. His services to science were recognized by his election to the presidentship of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1878 and 1879 in succession to Sir William Huggins, and to the fellowship of the Royal Society in 1878. He also received the degree of LL.D. from Edinburgh University in 1882, and in the following year was nominated honorary associate of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences. An enthusiastic bibliophile, he became a trustee of the British Museum, and acted for a term as president of the Library Association. To the free library of Wigan, Lancashire, he gave a series of oriental and English MSS. of the 9th to the 19th centuries in illustration of the progress of handwriting, while for the use of specialists and students he issued the invaluable Bibliotheca Lindesiana. He represented Wigan in the House of Commons from 1874 till his succession. to the title in 1880.
This comes from:
http://49.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CR/CRAWFORD_EARLS_OF.htm |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1707
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Also there is an image of Crawford on the national Portrait Gallery site at
http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?LinkID=mp01094&rNo=0&role=sit |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1708
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
There was a mysstery involving Crawford's own family. His father's body was snatched from its grave and anonymous letters received. A full account of this is at:
http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/roughead/dunecht.htm |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1930
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
just wondering if you have to be called chris to contribute to this thread!
Jenni
ps interesting links. |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
I think that one or two posters above have misunderstood the wording of Crawford's letter. When he says "whose name is unknown to me" I do not think he means that the woman hasn't told him her name. What he does mean is that although he has been told her name, it is one that was previously unknown to him. This sort of phraseology was common in Victorian days. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Hi AIP
Many thanks for bringing that reading of the Crawford letter to the table, that you believe the earl was not saying he did not know the woman's name, only that he had not previously known the name. That sounds plausible. Of course to be more correct he might have said, "Prior to our meeting, her name had been unknown to me" although I do think your reading of the wording is very plausible. Many thanks.
Best regards
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3216
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
A number of people have brought up the Crawford letter recently so I thought I would repost the actual letter here:
To recap on my update to "Emily and the Bibliophile"...
I found that the "Emily Druitt" who worked with Quaritch/Muir in 1886/1887 was in fact related to a different line of Druitts through Jabez and Sophia Druitt of Mile End - she was not Emily Druitt, MJ's cousin (though both were art students). Muir was the son-in-law of Sophia and Jabez Druitt. My source for this was: “Blake: An Illustrated Quarterly”, Vol. 27, No. 1, Summer 1993.
A post made by Chris Phillips back in 2003 indicates that there exists within the Druitt papers evidence that Jabez was in contact with the family of Robert Druitt (MJ's uncle). If true this may indicate that there may still be a link between the Druitts and Crawford, via Quaritch.
It has also been suggested that the Crawford letter might relate not to Druitt but to Kosminski, who we know was Anderson's favored suspect.
What remains are the questions, Who was the woman Crawford introduced to Anderson, and Why did Anderson see fit to keep only this item in his personal correspondence (it was the only item I found in the Anderson family papers which has anything to do with the Ripper case).
Obviously it would be great to pore through Crawford's own correspondence to see if any mentions are made of this incident.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
